G.R. No. 235799 - JASPER MONROY Y MORA, PETITIONER, v.

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 235799, July 29, 2019

JASPER MONROY Y MORA, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition1 for review on certiorari are the Decision2 dated August 16,

2017 and the Resolution3dated November 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR No. 38406 which affirmed with modifications the Decision 4 dated October 12,
2015 and the Order5 dated January 7, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela
City, Branch 270 (RTC) finding petitioner Jasper Monroy y Mora (petitioner) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No.
(RA) 7610,6 otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act."

The Facts

Petitioner was charged with Rape, in relation to RA 7610, in an Information 7 which

reads: cralawred

That on or about October 17, 2014, in Valenzuela City, Metro Manila and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously insert his penis into the vagina of
one AAA,8 14 years old (DOB: x x x), against her will and without her consent, thereby
subjecting said minor to sexual abuse which debased, degraded and demeaned her
intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.

Contrary to Law.

Records show that AAA and petitioner used to live in the same house, together with
AAA's older sister, BBB, and BBB's husband, CCC. CCC is petitioner's uncle. 9

The evidence for the prosecution show that on October 17, 2014, at around nine (9) o'
clock in the evening, AAA was watching television in the  sala  when petitioner, who was
drunk and wearing only his underwear, approached her and suddenly pulled the blanket
that AAA was using, telling her that he was just borrowing it. 10 At that time, BBB and
CCC were at the second floor of the house. After a while, AAA asked for her blanket
back from petitioner, as she was ready to go to sleep. However, petitioner grabbed her
left arm and pulled her onto his bed. While pinning her to the bed, petitioner removed
her shorts and underwear and thereafter, inserted his penis into her vagina. She tried
to shout but petitioner covered her mouth; she feared for her life after recalling an
incident in December 2013 when petitioner got mad and poked a knife against BBB's
neck.11

Thereafter, petitioner stood up, walked to the kitchen, and told her that he was going to
sleep. Meanwhile, as AAA pulled up her clothes, she realized that her life was already
worthless and contemplated on committing suicide.12Thus, she left a suicide note13 and
then consumed a medicine for dogs from the veterinary clinic being managed by the
brother of AAA's brother-in-law. She woke up the following morning in the hospital and
was discharged in the afternoon of the same day. 14

On October 19, 2014, she confided to BBB what happened to her and together, they
proceeded to the police station to report the incident. 15 A physical examination
thereafter conducted on AAA revealed that "[a]nogenital findings are indicative of blunt
force penetrating trauma to the hymen."16

The prosecution further alleged that prior to the incident on October 17, 2014,
petitioner already attempted to rape her three (3) times. Petitioner threatened that she
would stop going to school and be sent back to the province if she told anyone.
However, when she learned that petitioner was going back to his wife and children in
the province, she wrote a letter17 stating the following: cralawred

"cge uwi ka para malaman talaga ngayon bakit naawa ako sau dahil mahal kita na ikaw
talaga ang dahilan kung bakit ako nagpakamatay wala kay ate wala kay kuya ginawa
ko lang yung kwento para hindi ka makulong para pag umuwi ka patay na ako kolong
ka pa sinira mo lahat pati pangarap ko ngayon magkaalaman tayo mas maganda ako
mag plano sayo dahil pag wala na ako kulong kanaman diba patas nayon hindi mo
naman ako siniryoso eh kaya gagawin ko para sirain pamilya mo hindi mo ako kilala
mas maganda ako magplano kaysa sayo ginamit mo kasi ako nong gabing yon. kaya
humanda ka sabihin ko ni rape mo ako. sinira mo pagkatao ko sirain ko din pamilya mo
para patas hindi ako nagbibiro"

In defense, petitioner claimed that in September 2014, AAA confessed that she had a
crush on him, but he told her that he was too old for her, being twenty-eight (28) years
old at the time. Thereafter, AAA twice confessed her feelings for him but he rebuffed
her, pushing her to attempt suicide.18 For fear that he might be blamed should AAA
succeed in killing herself, petitioner sought permission from his uncle to go home to the
province. When he told AAA about this, she got mad and threw a letter at him. 19

On October 18, 2014, at around five (5) o' clock in the morning, petitioner saw AAA
lying down at the clinic with foam frothing in her mouth. He called BBB and together,
they brought AAA to the hospital. He was later told that AAA attempted suicide because
he rejected her.20

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision21 dated October 12, 2015, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, which provides: cralawred

ARTICLE III 
CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEXUAL ABUSE
SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. — Children, whether male or
female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be

imposed upon the following: cralawred

xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under
Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That
the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age
shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced petitioner to suffer an indeterminate penalty of

fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to twenty
(20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the amounts of P50,000.00
as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. 22

In convicting petitioner, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove the
elements of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, to wit: (a) the accused
committed the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) the said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
(c) the child, whether male or female, is below eighteen (18) years of age. 23

In this case, it was established that petitioner had carnal knowledge of AAA, as shown
by her candid and straightforward testimony and corroborated by the results of the
physical examination conducted on her person. Likewise, it was established that AAA
was barely fourteen (14) years old at the time of the incident, therefore deemed to be a
"child" under the provisions of RA 7610. Finally, it was shown that AAA was intimidated
by her previous encounters with petitioner, which included the instance when the latter
poked a knife at BBB in AAA's presence. Clearly, as a child, AAA was an easy prey for
petitioner to satisfy his sexual desires.24

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration25 was denied in an Order26 dated January 7,

2016; thus, he appealed his conviction to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision27 dated August 16, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision with
modifications as to the penalty imposed and the damages awarded. Thus, the CA
imposed upon petitioner the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1)
day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Further, the award of civil indemnity was
reduced to P15,000.00 and moral damages to P15,000.00. Additionally, petitioner was
directed to pay the amounts of P15,000.00 as exemplary damages and P15,000.00 as
fine.28

In so ruling, the CA found that while it is true that petitioner had carnal knowledge of
AAA, the sexual act was not forced; instead, it was consensual for the following
reasons: first, AAA admitted to having written a letter 29 for petitioner stating, among
others, that she loved him, that she was trying to prevent him from going home to the
province, and that she will tell everyone that petitioner raped her in retaliation for him
leaving her; second, the contents of the said letter corroborated the defense and
version of the events offered by petitioner; third, petitioner did not threaten, intimidate,
or force AAA to have sexual intercourse with him; and finally, AAA did not offer any
form of resistance to petitioner's sexual advances. Nonetheless, the CA convicted
petitioner for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, under which — unlike
rape — the consent of the offended party is immaterial. Further, it held that the
disparity between the ages of petitioner and AAA placed the former in a stronger
position over the latter as to enable him to enforce his will upon her, thereby
constituting "influence" under RA 7610.30

Petitioner moved for reconsideration,31 which was, however, denied in a

Resolution32 dated November 7, 2017; hence, this petition.
 The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in upholding the
conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

In deciding Rape cases, it is well to emphasize that such crime is a serious

transgression with grave considerations and consequences both to the accused and the
complainant. On the one hand, the accused is presumed innocent and shall not be
convicted unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, in which case, he shall be
meted with a severe penalty. On the other hand, the Court is ever mindful that a young
woman would not publicly announce that she was raped if it were not true. No woman
would want to expose herself to the process, the trouble, and the humiliation of a rape
trial unless she actually has been a victim of abuse and her motive is but to seek
atonement for her abuse. In these lights, a painstaking review of the judgment of
conviction is required.33

In reviewing rape cases, the Court is guided by three (3) principles: (a) an accusation
of rape can be made with facility, and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is
even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove; (b)
considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (c) the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Following these
legal precepts, the victim's sole testimony must stand the test of credibility. 34

Petitioner was charged in this case with Rape in relation to RA 7610. After a careful
scrutiny of the records, the Court finds that his guilt has not been established with
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Rape under Article 226-A (1) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides: cralawred

Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed —

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances: cralawred

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

xxxx

To be convicted of rape under this provision, the prosecution must prove the following
elements beyond reasonable doubt: (a) offender had carnal knowledge of the victim;
and (b) such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.

Meanwhile, in order to be convicted under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610 which
penalizes sexual abuse,35there must be a confluence of the following elements: (a) the
accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) the said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
(c) that child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. 36

The evidence on record — consisting of AAA's testimony, as well as the results of the
medical examination on her person — are consistent with the prosecution's allegation
that petitioner had sexual intercourse with AAA. What is crucial for the Court's
consideration at this point is whether the sexual congress transpired with AAA's
consent, in light of the key element of "force, threat, or intimidation" that is the
gravamen of the offense of rape. On this score, the Court concurs with the CA's findings
that from the evidence on record, the sexual intercourse between petitioner and AAA
appears to be with the latter's consent.

Most revelatory among all the evidence on record is the undated letter 37 which AAA
admitted to have written for petitioner. In it, she unequivocally declared, among others,
that she loved petitioner, that the charge of rape was concocted to retaliate against
petitioner who wanted to go home to the province and to break his family apart, and
that she attempted to commit suicide because of him. This letter bolsters the suicide
note38 that AAA left for BBB on the same night of the sexual congress between AAA and
petitioner. On cross-examination, AAA admitted having written the undated letter for
petitioner, to wit: cralawred
[ATTY. BAUTISTA]: I am showing to you a letter, Ms. Witness, will you go over this and
tell to the Honorable Court, whose hand writing is this?

[AAA]: Mine, sir. Because he was about to go away to the province, he already packed
his things and he was about to leave that's where I have the courage to tell to my sister
what happened.39

xxxx

Q: But you wrote this letter?

A : Yes, . sir.40

xxxx

Q: He was packing and he was going to his live-in partner and to his child in Isabela?

A: I don't know where he is going.

Q: But you know that he was leaving?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And he is leaving you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you're angry because you love the accused, am I correct?

A: No, sir.

Q: And why is it that you wrote in your letter "Dahil mahal kita?"

A: I only wrote that because I don't want him to leave because he has to pay what he
did to me, sir.

Q: Do you confirm that you wrote the following words: "Mas maganda akong magplano
sayo dahil pag wala na ako kulong ka naman diba, patas lang tayo hindi mo naman ako
sineryoso eh kaya gagawin ko para masira ang pamilya mo, hindi mo ako kilala mas
maganda ako magplano sayo, ginamit mo kasi ako nung gabing yun kaya humanda ka
sasabihin ko nirape mo ko"

A: Yes, sir, he raped me.

Q: But you stated here that you will tell that you were raped?

A: Nirape nya po ako talaga, totoo naman talaga na nirape nya ko kung ginusto ko po
yun, bakit pa ko magpapakamatay kaylangan ko pa bang sayangin yung buhay ko dahil
sa kanya,  dahil minahal ko po sya?

Q: What do you mean by that, Ms. Witness?

A: Hindi po, ibig sabihin ko po kaylangan ko pa bang sayangin ung buhay ko dahil
inaano ko lang na nirape nya ako, sinasabi ko lang ... hindi naman po ako
nagsisinungaling eh.

Q: So you value your life and your dignity, am I correct Ms. Witness?

A: Yes, sir.41 (Emphases supplied)

From the foregoing pieces of evidence, it would appear that the sexual intercourse that
transpired between petitioner and AAA was consensual at the time — with AAA
admitting that she loved petitioner — but when she learned that the object of her
affection was about to leave for the province, she felt jaded and could not accept it.
Hence, she attempted to commit suicide, as evidenced by the suicide note and the
afore-quoted letter for petitioner, and threatened not just to break his family apart but
also, to charge him with rape. As it is, the present case against petitioner is based
merely on trumped-up allegations meant as retaliation.

That the sexual intercourse between the parties appears to be consensual is bolstered
by the fact that AAA failed to cry or shout for help, or at the very least, offer some kind
of resistance against petitioner's advances. She claimed to have tried to shout but
petitioner allegedly covered her mouth; 42 still, under the circumstances, and fully aware
that petitioner was about to defile her, she could have made any kind of noise in order
to alert her sister BBB and CCC, who were upstairs at the time. While it is true that the
failure of the victim to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapist is not
tantamount to consent, in this case it created a serious doubt when taken together with
the other pieces of evidence tending to show that AAA consented to the sexual congress
and merely fabricated the rape charge against petitioner. Neither can the Court accept
AAA's explanation that she was afraid of petitioner because she recalled an incident in
2013 when petitioner allegedly poked a knife against BBB's neck; at the particular
moment when AAA alleged that petitioner forced himself upon her, there was no
immediate threat of bodily harm or injury as to rouse fear or panic in AAA.

As regards the CA's conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of
RA 7610 on the premise that consent is immaterial under such charges, it bears to
point out that "consent of the child is material and may even be a defense in criminal
cases" involving the aforesaid violation when the offended party is 12 years old or
below 18 years old,43 as in AAA's case. The concept of consent under Section 5 (b),
Article III of RA 7610 peculiarly relates to the second element of the crime – that is, the
act of sexual intercourse is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected
to other sexual abuse. A child is considered "exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse" when the child is pre-disposed to indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct because of money, profit or any other consideration or due to the
coercion of any adult, syndicate, or group, 44 which was not shown in this case; hence,
petitioner's conviction for the said crime cannot be sustained.

As repeatedly held by this Court, the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility
of witnesses are generally accorded great respect and even finality on appeal. However,
this principle does not preclude a reevaluation of the evidence to determine whether
material facts or circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial
court. It is the prosecution's duty to present the necessary evidence to prove conviction
beyond reasonable doubt to convince and satisfy the conscience of those who are to act
in judgment. Upon the prosecution's failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the
constitutional duty of the Court.
It bears stressing that the Court's finding does not mean absolute certainty that
petitioner did not coerce AAA to engage in the sexual act. It is simply that the evidence
presented by the prosecution fall short of the quantum of proof required to support a
conviction. Jurisprudence has consistently held that "[a] conviction in a criminal case
must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which means a moral certainty
that the accused is guilty; the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution." 45 If the
prosecution fails to do so, "the presumption of innocence of the accused must be
sustained and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. For the prosecution's
evidence must stand or fall on its own merit and cannot be allowed to draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense," 46 as in this case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 16, 2017 and the
Resolution dated November 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38406
are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Jasper Monroy y  Mora
is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.

cralawlawlibrary

Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, and J. Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur. 

A. Reyes, Jr., J.,* on official leave. 

Endnotes:

*
 Designated Additional Member per Raffle dated July 1, 2019; on official leave.

1
Rollo, pp. 12-28.

2
 Id. at 33-63-A. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of
this Court) with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Pedro B. Corales,
concurring.

3
 Id. at 65.

4
 Id. at 87-112. Penned by Presiding Judge Evangeline M. Francisco.
5
 Id. at 113.

6
 Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL
PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION,
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved
on June 17, 1992.

7
 See rollo, p. 34.

8
 The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her
identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be
withheld pursuant to RA 7610, entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER
DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND
DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" approved on June 17, 1992; RA 9262,
entitled "AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN,
PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on March 8, 2004; and Section 40
of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, otherwise known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women
and Their Children" (November 15, 2004). (See footnote 4 in People v. Cadano, Jr., 729
Phil. 576, 578 [2014], citing People v. Lomaque, 710 Phil. 338, 342 [2013].)

9
 See rollo, p. 35.

10
 Id.

11
 Id.

12
 Id. at 36.

13
 Id. at 352. The letter states: cralawred

"Ate pasinsya na pero kailangan kong gawin sumuko na ako sa buhay ko at sira na rin
lahat nang pangarap ko sa buhay dahil araw2x na sana makatapos ako nang pagaaral
hindi nayon matupad dahil sinira nang tao ang boung pagkatao ko mahal na mahal ko
kau te sana sabihin nyo kay nanay na pasensya na"
14
 Id. at 36.

15
 Id.

16
 Initial Medico-Legal Report dated November 5, 2014 and Medico-Legal Report No.
R14-378N, both prepared by Police Chief Inspector and Medico-Legal Officer Jocelyn
Padilla Cruz, MD; id. at 157 and 165, respectively.

17
 Id. at 167.

18
 Id. at 39.

19
 See id. at 39 and 106.

20
 Id. at 40.

21
 Id. at 87-112.

22
 Id. at 112.

23
 Id. at 110.

24
 Id. at 110-111.

25
 Dated November 20, 2015; id. at 114-123.